How about we change that to 'some might believe.' I know some Christian fundamentalists who regard science very highly.
I'm giving those folks the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying they aren't true fundamentalists.
Where the divide comes in, is that some of them become policitcal in their views. (ok many) lol And when my views start infinging on your views...we all start getting upset.
The only thing that fazes me is the abuse of power, esp. when done through propaganda that targets vulnerable minds. Interfering with the teaching of evolution is very harmful to the good of society. It's also emblematic of some of the more twisted kinds of denial, such as the one that leads a man to claim that rape is the will of God. That takes us really close to danger zone. You could say it condones violence, just as the battle cry for gun owners to go out and exercise their Second Amendment rights led to assaults on a few liberal offices. In the Islamic context is the notion of killing and terrorizing people by associating them with the Devil (and its incarnations, like Capitalism), and the most extreme cases are the people who have been brainwashed into believing that they can strap on a pack full of explosives, walk into a crowded place, and find God.
We could get into science vs. moral law, but let's not go there. lol (I think they are more closely related than they are not)
I think all moral law arrives purely out of the force of nature which keeps animals operating in cooperation for mutual survival. So much of bad behavior is instinctively wired into us that we would probably not need any laws at all if it were not for some of the artifices of the civilized world (e.g. traffic laws are a consequence of the invention of machines which are enormously uplifting to human existence but extremely dangerous when not regulated.)
I believe personally that science and faith (belief in a Creator) can WHOLEHEARTEDLY coexist, but some of my Christian cohorts might not.
I'm putting those folks into one bucket and labeling it "denial". If they are also strict fundamentalists, then I'm putting black dots on their foreheads. Then I'm doing a count and noticing that the vast majority of denialists are strict fundamentalists, whether Christian, Islamic, or any religion. It's just that the largest direct impact in domestic affairs (not counting 9/11) goes to the Christian ones.
can you define in your own terms, fundamentalist? (when speaking of the abrahamic faiths u mention here) i know what it means, but want to make sure i'm following your view here when you speak of it. (thank u)
First, it's any person who reads an ancient book of religion with strict literal interpretation, without room for metaphor or interpretation (exegesis) that honestly addresses the main reasons it should not be taken literally. Second, this person is at odds with science wherever science conflicts with the doxology, most notably by opposing the teaching of evolution. There are a lot more quaint ways to describe the ones who put on robes with hoods (more so in the past than now) but the third quality of a fundamentalist is a migration into that second stage of grief, anger, with little more than hatred (the common phobias I mentioned) and the outward expression of hatred (against groups; overt discrimination and feelings of superiority) either passively condoning, or actively participating in cruelty or violence against the targeted individual groups. Without any disrespect to the good people who end up in farming, I would go from here with some of the more poignant characterizations taken from any book that begins:
You might be a redneck if . . . , starting first with some of the references made to religion and moving to the ones that characterize the many prejudices these folks have, seen as a stereotype for Southern racism, but also recognized as arising from their issues with anger, anger for having to suffer the indignities that they inflicted upon themselves, whether or not by some curse their ancestors left them heir to.
As you see I'm narrowing it down to a much more select group of "fundamentalists" than plain meaning would require, to be sure I'm not insulting anyone who doesn't deserve to be called to the carpet for all of this.
agree. but many christians also feel infringed upon as well by the 'science community'. just saying, it is an unfortunate two way street.
If by community you mean individuals (like flame wars full of insults) that's perfectly understandable. What defies comprehension is how anyone can lump scientists into the same category as a religion (operating under a credo), or that science has any other role in the moral life of a society other than preserving human life, upholding virtue and protecting all people from all harm (medicine, civil engineering, safety engineering etc. have these as their express goals), or that there is a cabal or secret society brainwashing us (and this from people completely brainwashed by their parents and religious leaders) or anything that smacks of conspiracy as a general rule. Worse, to attack science from the perception of an attitude of the 'community of scientists' is to attack very nearly all of the universities in the world, and the people who attended them, most of whom devoted themselves to aiding and protecting others, and upholding virtue (beginning with honesty, the most fundamental trait needed to get an education) through devotion to learning and understanding nature. After all nature is our only true enemy. Those who are devoted to protecting us from the ravages of nature should be regarded as friends of the world, giving that knowledge freely to all posterity in the body of work we call Science. That being said, a religious person who is not a fundamentalist (as I've defined it now) should feel very nearly as much offense from fundamentalism as the science community does.
the Christian faith is filled with HUMANS, though.
Fallible and sometimes, VERY misguided. Jesus said, you will know them by their fruit. (believers)
(Matthew 7:16)
We also talk about the fruits of labor; the most evident everywhere you go are the products of science even though the sweat and broken backs of men and women who didn't have the means to an education brought these things into being. If we are to know science by its fruits, then we would have to conclude that it's nothing short of sacred. This is one way Christians in the past have coped with the issue. There are several eras in Church history in which all things true about nature were considered divinely revealed; that God gave people their faculties of intellect and reason for the express purpose of using them, which necessarily largely amounts to science. Too bad for the fundamentalists that they are primarily Protestants, or they might take their history a little more seriously, and realize that they are centuries behind the reasoning that led the orthodox religions to finally embrace evolution (esp. Roman Catholics).
I enjoy conversations with you, because you are not quick to judge. You are a good listener. And I appreciate that, because I'm not here to sway opinions to mine.
And you are more direct and civil which is great. I guess everyone has different reasons for whiling away their time like this (I liked the caption someone here uses "I really should be studying" - I hope he'll be back after his absence.) Some of us have been so pumped full of facts and experiences I think we can't help ourselves but to do that "data dump" whenever we realize we're talking to someone who hasn't been through it. Science isn't anything like "what they told you do, in them thar books" which especially grates at anyone who took a science major in college. So you're kind of stuck with this void that the science majors are compelled to fill every time the next empty dump truck pulls up. (Whether it has a cross, star of David, 5-pointed star with crescent moon, or any other symbol on it.)
I did laugh at you injecting sarah palin into the conversation.
Oh gosh. Please know, not all christians are enamored with that woman.
I won't go there, because I don't want to judge her.
What a joker, and what a disgrace to the office that could have been held by a woman with even a clue. And worst of all, she is largely a product of the desire to please the morons who want no woman in a stone’s throw of the presidency unless she resembles the dumbest dingbat ever to be left barefoot and pregnant. Palin is of course the person who most famously could not name any Supreme Court case -- other than Roe v Wade -- when asked by the incredulous Katie Couric how she would apply the trends in the Court to navigate the question of which bills should come up first -- the job of the Vice President, in his/her capacity as President of the Senate. (Also egregious was her answer "All of them" to the question "what journals have you read?") What a slap in the face to countless women actually qualified for that very serious job. Of course Palin, a news anchor, stands in stark contrast to Couric, as well as Rachel Madden, the MSNBC anchor who appeared in that clip I posted, much less the more accomplished women in public view - most notably the distinguished Susan Rice, who I hope will rise from the ashes of what they did to her. In any case, it's absurd that people who once revered Sarah Palin would attack a woman of Rice's stature and do so without recognizing the insult to women everywhere. For reasons like this I have no problem passing judgment on the most egregious violators of conscience and good will. There's no question in my mind that Palin suffers from one of the worst cases of terminal stupidity seen since . . . well George W Bush . . . though he brought a passel of contenders to the table.
All of this, just to tighten their grip on the teaching of evolution, with all that it entails (racism to misogyny) - almost exclusively to promote white male supremacy and the de facto institution of religious ideology over public policy - not exactly a Church-State, just a very moronic interpretation of what that might entail. (And downright mean, too.)
